On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:35:49PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the > > usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually > > provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this > > easier to maintain than a "virtual/eject sys-block/unieject" entry in > > the default-bsd profile? > I should have explained what my whole plan was, probably :) > > Currently there are things provided by sys-apps/eject that are not available > on either unieject or eject-bsd.. the final idea was, from my part, to > identify those features in three versions "0a 0b 0c" (the 0 version is to > avoid collisions between virtual/eject and sys-apps/eject binpks). > > 0a would be simply the basic eject command, what it is now. > 0b would be basic eject + --trayclose (needed by rip for instance) > 0c would be ability to eject usb/scsi devices. > > The first case is the dependency as it is now, the second is eject or > unieject, the third would be just eject and thus not keyworded ~x86-fbsd at > all. > > When I'll be able to provide 0c features in unieject, I'd add that to 0c. > > The need for usb/scsi eject is given by libgpod and related :)
Thanks for the explanation. It seems sane enough, at least to me, now :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
